This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

The only thing Canadians fear more than sprawl, the joke goes, is density.

Problem is it’s not a joke.

The very word conjures up visions of shadowy canyons of bleak high-rise apartment buildings and over-crowded buses lurching along congested streets. It inspires fears of endless line-ups, cavernous waiting-rooms and no place to sit.

But density also means the museum, art galleries, film festivals, Nuit Blanche and major league sports. It includes some of the best universities in the world, not to mention countless restaurants, shops and amenities, everything from skating rinks to pools to….

Density generates economic activity, i.e. jobs and wealth. And in the 21st century, as never before, the business of the world is transacted in large urban centres.

Article Continued Below

But it is also in the city where politics are darkest, most parochial and most grimly human. It is in cities where the NIMBY forces have grown so strident they now believe they should dictate who lives next door.

Density is one of those things that many feel should be stopped after they have what they want. A highrise condo goes up, people move in, and promptly try to stop another one from going up down the road.

In fact, density is what will save the city and the Greater Toronto Area and enable its 5.5 million inhabitants to prosper in the decades ahead. The alternative — sprawl — is catastrophically wrong. Not only is sprawl environmentally unsustainable, it’s economically ruinous.

Given that congestion already costs the GTHA $6 billion annually, density isn’t just an option, it’s the only option.

Density, of course, is a prerequisite for mass transit, which the region desperately needs.

Though the provincial government has since run out of steam, a decade ago it boldly tackled sprawl with a series of major acts — Oak Ridges Moraine (2001) Greenbelt and Places to Grow (both 2005) — designed to encourage density organized around transit-oriented communities. The legislation won international awards, but met with fierce resistance from builders and town councils, many of whose members received large donations from developers.

Though progress has been made, sprawl continues in many regions unabated. On the other hand, Markham is constructing a new high-density downtown, and even Mississauga has upped density levels and announced plans for enhanced public transit.

Recent studies have discovered that the appetite for suburban life appears to have peaked. More than ever, respondents tell researchers they would be willing to trade size for location, in other words, live in a smaller house but enjoy access to a greater variety of amenities, the amenities that come with density.

Still, for many density means St. James Town, dozens of dreary towers, poorly maintained, clustered too close and cut off from the city. The project, which dates from the 1960s, is a study in good intentions gone bad. Originally marketed to young urban hipsters, it soon became a place set aside for the poor and recently arrived.

Yet anyone who has wandered the tower-lined streets of cities such as New York, Hong Kong or Tokyo knows that density is a relative concept. With about 26,000 people per square kilometre, Hong Kong teems with life. Manhattan comes in at 27,000 per square kilometre. Toronto sits at approximately 4,150 per square kilometre.

In a country that likes to see itself as one endless space, the bias against density runs deep. Convinced that we will never run out of land, we have justified sprawl on the basis that there will always be more empty fields to develop.

Even if that were true, the logistics of sprawl — the highways, parking lots, time spent travelling and gasoline — make it impossible to maintain. It has long since reached the point where advantages are outweighed by disadvantages.

Keep in mind that it’s sprawl, not density, that causes congestion. Yes, downtown traffic can be bad, but the worst gridlock occurs in suburban areas where residents must, as they say, burn a litre of gas to buy a litre of milk.

Though criticism of Toronto’s condo boom has been constant, the fact is these residential towers have created the conditions that allow Torontonians the full benefits of urban density.

That means being able to walk to work, to shopping for groceries at 3 a.m. and everything in between. We have reached a point in Toronto where at least one condo tower under construction, 426 University Ave., will have no parking.

That would have been unthinkable not so long ago, but in the 21st century it suddenly makes sense. Indeed, it is a powerful indication of things to come. What the car hath taken away, density will giveth back.

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com